(10-29-2026 12:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  just another poli-game...

(10-29-2026 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 12:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  just another poli-game...

A hit like that would have demolished their stock price. Wonder why it didnt?

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Under Colorado law

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(10-29-2026 04:37 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(Decided to indulge myself a little today. lol)

(10-29-2026 04:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:37 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(Decided to indulge myself a little today. lol)

you and me both ... sometimes, the game is just fonzies ...

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(10-29-2026 06:05 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

That's pretty good, I wonder how long Tom spent researching his rebuttal on the internet, damn left wing AI.

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.